The current study investigated whether trait ratings of the speakers’ body movements are coupled to the amount of applause or hecklings the speakers received throughout their entire speech. We thus intended to demonstrate that people make sense of parsimonious nonverbal cues and that judgments based on such cues can serve
as predictors of behavioral outcomes in a real life setting of high ecological validity. Other “thin slices” studies have already linked job performances or election results to certain behaviors or the appearance of a person. Such variables, however, provide no insight into the direct impact of nonverbal cues on human communication. In contrast to that our research not only focused on body motion but also examined its relationship to behavioral responses that occur in
a direct interaction between an audience KU-57788 mw and a speaker. We provide evidence that motion cues, Vorinostat chemical structure indeed, reflect socially relevant information that affects behavioral responses arising in interpersonal communication processes. To sum up, by using trait ratings as predictors of real life outcomes (i.e., audience reactions) we show that people not only read meaning into body motion but also infer relevant social information from it. We randomly selected 60 speeches (30 male and 30 female) from three parliamentary sessions of the German parliament. From these speeches, we extracted brief, randomly chosen video segments with an average length of 15 s. To create stick-figure movies of the speakers’ performances, we used the computer program SpeechAnalyzer that enabled us to run through a movie frame by frame and to position landmarks on the speakers’ major joints and their Ureohydrolase heads (Koppensteiner, 2013 and Koppensteiner and Grammer, 2010). To capture body movements these landmarks were repositioned according to the position shifts of a speaker’s body. Thus, landmark positions were translated into time series of two dimensional coordinates on which basis we created
stick figure movies we used for our rating experiments. At locations throughout the University of Vienna we recruited 60 persons (33 females and 27 males; age M = 22.5 years, SD = 3.7) for the stick figure rating experiment. Participants performed the rating task on their own using a computer-controlled interface. Stimuli were presented on the left-hand side of the user interface; rating scales with the items dominant, trustworthy, and competent and items from a German version of a brief questionnaire measuring the Big Five personality domains (i.e., Ten-Item Personality Inventory, TIPI) were presented on the right hand side ( Gosling et al., 2003 and Muck et al., 2007). The scales were divided into 200 subunits with 0 indicating strongly disagree and 200 strongly agree. Each participant rated a subset of 20 randomly selected stick figure animations.